Maritime Union of AustraliavFremantle Port Authority

[2012] FWA 7391

[2012] FWA 7391

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR DECISIONS

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Maritime Union of Australia
v
Fremantle Port Authority
(B2012/976)

and

Maritime Union of Australia
v
Fremantle Port Authority

(B2012/977)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 28 AUGUST 2012

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Fremantle Port Authority.

[1] On 16 August 2012, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) (“the Applicant”) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for protected action ballot orders pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The employees to be balloted are employees employed by the Fremantle Port Authority (“the Employer”) and are represented by the MUA in bargaining for a replacement agreement to the Fremantle Ports Bulk and General Stevedoring Agreement 2005 and Fremantle Ports Operations and Services Enterprise Agreement 2010 (Collectively “the Agreements”).

[3] The nominal expiry dates of the Agreements are 21 July 2012 (B2012/976) and 19 August 2012 (B2012/977).

[4] The applications were heard on 20 August 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I was satisfied that the MUA has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer whose employees are to be balloted. Accordingly, I issued Orders PR528118 (B2012/976) and PR528119 (B2012/977). These are the written reasons for issuing the Orders.

[5] At the hearing, the MUA was represented by Mr L Edmonds of the MUA. The Employer was represented by Mr M Vallence of counsel.

[6] Mr Edmonds sought that both applications be heard and dealt with jointly. The Employer had no objections and the applications were dealt with accordingly.

[7] While there are two separate agreements, bargaining for replacement agreements have been taking place at the same time.

[8] Both the MUA and the Employer agreed that the jurisdictional requirements of the FW Act had been met. The Employer submitted that both parties have been and are genuinely trying to reach agreement in relation to bargaining for the replacements agreements.

[9] The Employer does not oppose the applications. The MUA and Employer, following discussions, agreed to consent orders being made by the Tribunal.

CONCLUSION

[10] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 448 of the FW Act have been met.

[11] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, the MUA’s submissions, evidence and the Employer’s position in not opposing the application, I determined that the Applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds I issued Orders PR528118 and PR528119 on 20 August 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

L Edmonds, for the MUA.

M Vallence, on behalf of the Employer.

Hearing details:

2012:
Perth,
20 August 2012.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR528451>